google-appscript-mcp-server

script_projects_deployments_list

Retrieve a paginated list of all deployments for a specified Google Apps Script project, using the script ID and optional fields for partial responses.

Instructions

Lists the deployments of an Apps Script project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scriptId": "<scriptId>"
    },
    "name": "script_projects_deployments_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Selector specifying which fields to include in a partial response.
`pageSize`	No	The number of deployments to return per page.
`scriptId`	Yes	The ID of the script project.
`pageToken`	No	Token for pagination.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'lists deployments' without mentioning pagination behavior, ordering, read-only nature, or any access requirements. Minimal information beyond the obvious.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and object. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's relative simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain the return format, pagination details, or how it fits with sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters (fields, pageSize, scriptId, pageToken), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning or context about how the parameters interact or are used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as 'deployments of an Apps Script project', making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like deployments_get or deployments_delete, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over its siblings. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and parameter schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.